- learn about the conceptual framework Hodges' model. A tool that can help integrate HEALTH and SOCIAL CARE, INFORMATICS and EDUCATION. The model is situated, facilitates person-centredness, integrated - holistic care and reflective practice. A new site using Drupal is an ongoing aim - the creation of a reflective workbench. Email: h2cmng @ yahoo.co.uk Welcome

Friday, August 19, 2011

Top 5 worst EMR myths: c/o Healthcare IT News

I came across this post by Molly Merrill, Associate Editor and thought I could add some comments.

I'm usually wary of posts of the list of ... and top 5, top 10 variety. You see much of social media is cordial - not the concentrate form - but the dilute as observed in many of the comments. Anyway ....

You can read the original full text for each of the five on Healthcare IT News, here are some additional thoughts:

1. EMRs are bad for “bedside manner".

They can be BAD it all depends on usability, engagement, attitude, requirement, the overall environment and the extent to which the EMR is considered in all its socio-technical glory. Whatever the research does show item #2 admits the qualitative differences that exist in the marketplace - some EMRs are easier-to-use. If we expand the engagement beyond the professionals then the bedside equation demands the patient is factored in.

With the right care philosophy and conceptual framework e-health records of all varieties (EHR, PHR, EMR, Summary ....) can also support a positive, person centered bedside manner - transforming it to one that chomps at the bit ;-) to become a community based manner.

2. You can't teach old doctors new tricks.

Continuing professional development (or its equivalent) dictates that older doctors and other senior members of the multidisciplinary health and social care team can (should and must!) learn new tricks right up to retirement. Lifelong learning applies to all.

3. Only hospitals use EMRs.

I've little experience here working in the community (and in mental health), but judging from the applications and the infrastructure that an older EMR may demand, I suspect that they are indeed hospital (organisational) centered. That clearly is changing as mobile, mhealth applications mature to meet the rigorous demands of this market.

4. Having my data stored in an EMR is a security risk.

The security of electronic records cannot be assured. Data on devices that is not encrypted - is an open door, especially when those devices are portable. (If the use of encryption leads to complacency then I am uneasy.) Disciplinary measures may follow, but they are not a remedy. The human link in the chain aside - electronic records can be security assured to international standards. Far better than paper records and the photographs (anybody?) of paper hospital files sitting at the side of a corridor and other horror stories.

(See also: The New York Times, 21 August 2011, New Data Spill Shows Risk of Online Health Records)


5. EMRs are expensive.

There are beholders, stakeholders, budget holders and tax payers. Despite the need for research findings I like the reflection of reality in item 5 that presages new players using new architectures and approaches. I've always felt that standards are essential and yet how do they relate to the scope for innovations? What is the relationship and how does that impact the market and in turn costs?

I've come across an item in .Net magazine that relates to EMRs - indeed all health informatics - I'll post on this while in London and attending Drupalcon.

Many thanks to http://www.healthcareitnews.com/

Image source:

Stumble Upon Toolbar